4.  The applicant, Mr Sergey Ivanovich Lyutov, was born in 1956 and lives in the town of Horlovka, Ukraine.
5.  On 22 November 1993 the applicant had a work-related accident in which he sustained multiple burns. On 24 November 1993 the applicant’s employer, the State company “Artemshaktobud” (“the company"), issued an accident report which stated that the applicant had been partly responsible for the accident.
6.  In 1994 the applicant received the status of a partially disabled person with a medium degree of disability. The company paid the applicant a single-payment accident allowance and awarded him compensation for loss of earnings, to be paid monthly.
7.  In May 1995 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Company in the Nikitovsky District Court of Horlovka, asking the court to establish that he was not responsible for the accident, to recalculate the amounts of the above payments and compensate him for the losses sustained due to the erroneous calculation. The applicant also claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused to him as a result of the accident. On 4 December 1995 the court allowed the applicant’s claims in part.
8.  On 28 March 1996 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Donetsk Region lodged a protest against the above judgment with the Presidium of the Donetsk Regional Court. On 10 April 1996 the latter allowed the protest, quashed the above decision and remitted the case for reconsideration to the first-instance court.
9.  On 22 July 1996 the Nikitovsky District Court of Horlovka allowed the applicant’s claims in part. The Deputy President of the Donetsk Regional Court lodged a protest against that decision with the Presidium of the Donetsk Regional Court. On 11 November 1998 the decision was quashed and the case was remitted to the first-instance court for reconsideration on the ground that, inter alia, the first-instance court had erred in the calculation of the payments due to the applicant.
10.  On 11 November 1999 the Nikitovsky District Court of Donetsk allowed the applicant’s claims in part. The company appealed against that decision. On 24 January 2000 it was quashed by the Donetsk Regional Court on the ground that the first-instance court had erred in its calculation of the payments due to the applicant. Therefore the case was remitted to the first-instance court for a fresh consideration.
11.  On 7 June 2000 the Nikitovsky District Court of Horlovka allowed the applicant’s claims in part. The company appealed against this decision. On 13 November 2000 the Donetsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 7 June 2000 on the ground that the first-instance court had erred in the calculation of the payments due to the applicant. By the same ruling the court of appeal remitted the case to the first-instance court.
12.  In April 2001 the applicant lodged an additional claim, requesting the court to amend the report of 24 November 1993.
13.  On 17 January 2001 the applicant lodged a request with the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal for his case to be remitted to another court for consideration.
14.  On 6 March 2002 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a first-instance court, considered the applicant’s case and allowed his claims in part.
15.  Dissatisfied that the court of appeal had not allowed all of his claims, the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation against the decision on 27 May 2002. According to the law in force at the material time, the cassation appeal was filed with the first-instance court, which was to verify its compliance with procedural rules.
16.  According to the records provided by the Government, on 23 October 2003 the Supreme Court refused to consider the applicant’s appeal in cassation on the ground that he had failed to comply with procedural formalities prescribed by Ukrainian law.
17.   On 3 December 2002 the court of appeal renewed the time-limit for lodging an appeal in cassation and the applicant’s appeal in cassation was transferred to the Supreme Court.
18.  On 14 April 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment given by the court of appeal.
19.  The amount awarded was paid on 8 July 2004.
20.  According to the records provided by the Government, out of around forty-three hearings scheduled between November 1998 and April 2004, nine were adjourned due to the absence, or at the request, of the defendant’s representative. One was adjourned because of the absence of both parties. Four were adjourned because of the absence of the applicant’s lawyer; two were adjourned due to the applicant’s absence or at his request. One hearing was adjourned due to the judge’s illness. In the course of the proceedings falling within the Court’s competence, the applicant sought the transfer of his case to another court on three occasions.